The journey so far:
(Stage 1) CP is populated with 35% off the on-chain transaction fees
(Stage 2) Start with 1.2% VAT burn rate off on-chain transaction volume
(Stage 3) Reduce burn rate VAT to 0.18% and allocate 0.02% from the would-be-burned coins to the CP
(This Proposal) Reduce burn rate to 0.1% and allocate 0.1% from the would-be-burned coins to the CP
…
first of all, I doubt binance will continue periodic burning if this parameter change gets passed, because binance support “the burn event” and with this approach, we can not call it “burn” anymore.
simply we mint half of the burned amount and I think binance sees it as draining their liquidities, which is different from their “burn event” goal.
then I think if we want an increase in this parameter, it should be smooth and a 400% increase is not the equilibrium change. it may have consequences that are not clear right now.
in the end, I must draw your attention to the oracle reward pool issue which needs to be addressed.
I understand situation about utility.
If this passes then please exclude BURN ADDRESS out of that. Otherwise we can say goodbye to Binance burning.
Also what is the rush with proposal? Already up for voting after few hours of discussion.
this proposal will end binance support on the chain is a huge shoot on the foot i really hope is voted against…
Perhaps a floating percentage could be established between 0.1% & 0.7%(Capped) This can be maintained to remain inversely proportional to the weekly average $Lunc dollar value?
This would remove any requirement for future proposals to increase/reduce the figures, due to increases/decreases in coin value.
Thank you guys. The CP needs a bit more.
I am not in favor of anything related to minting.
Until the maximum supply can be reduced
Never mint again! Get to 10 billion and then stabilize indefinitely.
I believe that we need to find a way to add fund to the community pool BUT by following this proposal we risk to loose the Binance burn. Basically they will indirectly fund the developers working on LUNC. When they agreed to burn their trading fees they did it with the purpose of burning coins. The proposal of remint the 10% of the burned coins came after.
Are we going to survive (in terms of funds allocated to the community pool) without the Binance burn?
Is there a prediction of the capital needed to finish rebuilding the ecosystem?
How much capital do we need right now to fund the development?
Cheers
Let’s take binance out of the equation and show us what we have. There is no guarantee that we will have dApps generating a ton of burns, especially in this bear market.Have we changed the reason for the 0.2% burn tax? We continue to implement proposals that are negatively affecting the rate of burn.
We are rushing proposals after proposals without giving enough time for feedback . Will TR/other devs be increasing their productivity five folds in the near future. Has TR made any request to the community for payment of work done or work to be done? The core components of the blockchain must be rebuilt before we can attract large projects.
We must be mindful of the fact that the LUNC community is a triangle of investors :TR,Validators and the retail users. This proposal will undoubtedly be favorable for TR in the immediate future. For me as a retail user I need the higher % of the tax returns to go to burning. 50% is way too much at this time for CP.
We then have the issue of the Oracle Pool. Validators and retail users are getting less and less rewards as staking increases. We need to increase that pool significantly so that we remain steadfast to staking. If we continue to push for more and more money for devs without considering the “stakers”, the chain will crash.
Let’s build LUNC smartly, slowly and surely.
Another way to fill the pool must be found without touching the burn
Raise the burn tax (to 5%) and keep 10% of the total revenue gathered going to our pool instead of the fire.
Now’s the time to have a high burn tax (5%), while the value of Lunc is low… as the value rises (users flow in and supply decreases ~ market cap gets divided less), lower the burn tax according to the risen value to keep the lost value low yet impactful.
Core development is key to attracting people, of course:
I think after this passing proposal we will lose binance burn support. And we will see big sales. Why are we always touching the tax rate rather than other things. This is against the #lunc community. Now everything seems ok. Please focus on dApps rather than tax rate.
@rahul_kumar ~ Focus on TC Core Development!
Third-parties will fund development of dapps and draw in new users… We (the community) only need to develop our core code in a way that attracts those third-parties (even with a burn tax on top of validation fees shortening their stacks). Construction of an impressive decentralization core design (linked below) will attract those third-party dapp developers as they seek stable scarcity, privacy, and a strong and fair democratic government structure… a decentralized core designed so good that people will pay to own units(LUNC) that revolve around it is what we need to focus on to achieve our goals.
@Dannavan_Morrison that estimate was based on data from 11/21 - 11/28 during which no binance burns were conducted, so that is with Binance out of the equation.
@Koch Stop spamming please.
@dudley while I agree, this proposal only deals with changing RewardPolicy rate_min to 0.5. Spending oversight is best discussed separately & voted on separately. We shouldn’t put multiple items in a single proposal.
Merchants Want Stable Markets & Users
If we can code a stable decentralized core (market), third-parties will come and fully fund the construction of their own dapps around that core. Users will pay Terra fees (to fund the creation of new blocks ~ verifications/validations) and third-party dapp fees (third-party profits) to access stable & scarce financial instruments (Lunc & USTC - under my plan for each), privacy, a fair and democratic governing structure (that blocks the waves of whales), and the utilities those third-parties fund, offer, and profit from.
You must not be reading what I’m writing… or, you just can’t envision the magnitude of what I’m proposing properly because it’s just so new and groundbreaking… I encourage you to take a read and think about what I am offering and join my movement to revive the cryptocurrency space through the first system to collapse… Terra Classic. The potential greatness of Lunc and USTC exists, and my plan uses the rubble of TC to construct that greatness… All we ( the community) need to do is build the marketplace, and that shouldn’t cost more than what’s in our community pool right now, if we find the right coders who are not all about getting paid ~ coders who have wealth already and want to construct a better world.
The Cost of Quality 101
People pay more for a Bentley or Rolls Royce or Ferrari or Bitcoin or Oswalds Mill audio equipment because of the quality of the designs…
People will pay more (5% burn tax ~ 10% of the 5% going to the community pool) plus the standard transaction fees for validating (equal to staking rewards being paid out) plus third-party dapp fees for access to QUALITY.
You want to increase revenue to increase utility but mention nothing of the core that all that revolves around. To me, this prop is spam - in a can.
I hope you see what I’m drawing for you. I want this community and the Terra infrastructure to launch into greatness. Props like this just burn up precious fuel ~ and most are like this (yesterday’s thinking).
Fees do not change all the time and Binance may withdraw support for burns.
I am against this proposal.Here is what will help our community solve any financial problems:
In order to constantly fill the public pool, it is enough to transfer it and any other income to staking.Staking rewards will allow unlimited time and sufficient funding for any necessary projects and developments.In this case, the public pool will not be depleted or stolen.The first task of our community is to maintain and replenish the public pool.And it is the staking of the public pool that allows you to solve all these issues.
@pivo4et ~
To prevent inflation (those staking rewards need to come from somewhere ~ fees or minting) we need to attract users before we stake more… right now we are staking too much at too high of an apr% and have little activity to generate fees to supply Lunc to that validation process (the burning is offset by minting to supply staking rewards)… we are burning fuel and not getting anywhere. All the thinkers must have collapsed with the ecosystem… or, are elsewhere… get back to the basics!